Conversation
Notices
-
Embed this notice
Basically, if you don't want to pay an insurance and doctor lots of money, you can die.
We don't do this at Law. People can represent themselves. Counsel isn't mandatory. To put it another way, you have more rights at law than you to do your own body.
-
Embed this notice
Yes. I have a standard declination letter.
> It was a pleasure speaking with, but I am unable to take on your matter at this time.
> The advice I gave was of a general nature. The law is complex, and nothing said in the consultation should be taken as compete or even correct advice respecting the intricacies of your matter.
> It is in your best interest to get counsel, if you can't find an attorney, here's the phone number of the local bar association. They may be able to match you with someone.
That's all paraphrased, but it about sums it up. And yes, I can spot a problem client 100 yards away, and will decline and even if their case may otherwise be solid.
-
Embed this notice
correct me if im wrong but a lawyer can pretty easily say no im not representing this pos an im not even gonna say why
-
Embed this notice
i think this has something to do with docs being obligated to treat every undeserving shitheel that comes thru their doors
-
Embed this notice
Yes and if you hire a lawyer and they divulge things you tell them, they can be disbarred for violation of attorney-client privilege. Furthermore, they make a point of advising you not to tell them anything that they might be obliged to use against you, or which might make them unable to further represent you.
But doctors can and do write reports about things people tell them even if there's no evidence of any criminal activity, just because they think it's suspicious. Also doctors will do the exact opposite of lawyers, and ask you questions to entrap you and get you to say things which make you look suspicious.
There really should be a society of ethical doctors.
-
Embed this notice
One other difference is the delay. For an attorney, case load is not an excuse to delay a client's matter. That's a quick and easy way to get your license suspended.
That doctors can make patients wait 60 to 90 days for an appointment or referral in many cases is absolutely horrendous. I have a hard time seeing why doctors shouldn't get their licenses yanked for it. "Industry standard" or "too many patients" should not be an excuse. If it is, then ipso facto, the law as it is should be found to violate due process and right to life / liberty by prohibiting self care, i.e. the state should not be allowed to rely on a regulatory scheme that delays care when justifying its prescription and lab requirements etc. There is some point at which that dam has to break. Is 90 days too long, 180? A year?
And yes, never trust a doctor with your information. Disclose only as much as necessary to get care. They write everything down and it can be easily acquired and used against you. In a proper case, I can subpoena most medical records, and the subpoena is merely subject to objection / protective order, meaning that the Healthcare provider must produce unless an objection is timely made by the patient or a protective order is sought. Your medical records are about as private as posting shit online as far as I'm concerned.
Conversely, the Attorney-client privilege is nearly as good as gold. Even if objection is not timely made on that ground in discovery, courts always allow a late objection. And it's very rare that a court will allow intrusion into that privilege based on the crime-fraud exception. The opposing party has to have damn solid evidence that the attorney's representation was being used to further a crime or fraud. Mere speculation won't get them there, nor will merely showing that the party had an attorney at or before the time of committing a crime or fraud.
-
Embed this notice
A few things often stick out:
1. Do they complain about the consultation fee. If so, red flag. They'll likely either not pay me after the first retainer gets drained, and/or I'll end up spending hours a month justifying my billing (I'm very fair with my billing btw). They'll nitpick every charge. I actually had a client like this try to sue me for the "overcharges." The judge laughed at them. I still had to spend a good day preparing for the trial and another afternoon in court. I got a judgment for my unpaid fees though. 😏 Live and learn.
2. Their goals. If they want to fight on principle after being told how the system actually works (i.e. generally you either compromise a claim, meaning you take less than you'd get at trial and taking into account fees and costs, or you "roll the dice" — trial outcome is hardly predictable in California for a number of reasons I'll refrain from discussing) then they're going to be a problem. It's either because they don't get it, don't want to get it, or simply aren't listening. Pragmatism, not principle, is the rule in litigation. This is one reason I don't do family law.
3. How they've communicated with the other party prior to coming in. Are they overly aggressive, do they make shit up, etc. These types will turn on counsel at some point in a litigation, and you'll spend time documenting everything because they're also likely to make reports to the bar or sue for malpractice if things don't go exactly how they want. As an attorney, I like to document as little as possible. I need clients I can trust.
4. Do they seem anal or controlling. My pet peeve are clients who try to micro manage me. Their bills get astronomical from the amount of contact, and of course they complain, and it forces me to explain legal theories, concepts, and philosophies that really require experience and knowledge of the subject matter, none of which they really understand. Plus, they're the type who believe they can control everything I do down to the communication. But that's not how it works. The client gets to decide the general goals and objectives, whether to settle or go to trial, etc., but how it gets done is 100% my choice. I'm actually very nice to good clients, but my general position, which I'm upfront about, is stfu and get behind me and let he handle this. Micromanagers get kicked to the curb. I don't even care how much they're paying me.
5. Have they had other counsel or are they in the middle of litigation. If so run. While it's possible that had shit counsel, 9 times out of 10, there's something wrong with the client or their matter. The client won't tell you that, nor will their prior counsel. This client usually thinks they smell like roses and the former counsel needs rid of them and you're the new fall guy.
6. Similar to 5, have they been turned down by other counsel and how many? If they've been turned down by a bunch of attorneys something is wrong with their matter. Run. The problem is that by the time you see them, they've learned what not to say, because that's that got their case turned down, and you don't want to find out a year into the matter.
-
Embed this notice
This piques my curiosity, what are the kind of problems that make problem clients? I gather it's not payment since they pay via retainer...
-
Embed this notice
@Humpleupagus @cjd @deavmi @dew_the_dew yeah but what do you tell your jewish clients
-
Embed this notice
A real attorney would have gone to jail to protect the privilege. Journalists have more spine than his counsels.
-
Embed this notice
@Humpleupagus @cjd @deavmi @dew_the_dew Privelege doesnt work if you are orange man. Otherwise this is all true
?? Humpleupagus ??
dew_the_dew
cjd
MasterSimper
smokescreen
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the